浙江省外贸依存度及风险研究 第3页
LESSONS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Author: John Humphrey & Hubert Schmitz
Nationality:U.K.
Derivation: Principles for promoting clusters & networks of SMEs, Commissioned by the Small and Medium Enterprises Branch October 1995
The purpose of this section is to explore how collective efficiency can be fostered in developing countries. This is not done by hypothetical reasoning but by drawing on real cases which give insights on how public policy can promote clustering and networking of SMEs.
There is, of course, now a substantial experience in policies for SMEs in developing countries. While rarely focused on collective efficiency, a good deal of progress has been made over recent years, notably in two areas: (1) reducing the large firm bias in the overall legal and policy framework: while not always practised it is a well recognized priority (Liedholm and Mead 1987; Mead 1995; Stewart 1989; Young 1993); (2) channelling credit to SMEs: successful lending schemes tend to be based locally, have decentralized decision making, screen loan requests on the basis of character of the entrepreneur and project feasibility (rather than collateral), charge interest rates high enough to cover operating expenses, and sometimes use peer pressure for repayment (Levitsky 1986; Liedholm and Mead 1987; Otero and Rhyne 1994; Sanyal and Pradhan 1992). Less progress has been made in nonfinancial assistance. Most attempts to provide such assistance tend to suffer from three deficiencies.
First., they are too supply oriented - that is, overly focused on inputs for production (skills, technology, raw materials) and not sufficiently concerned with who would buy the outputs. Second, they are rarely sustainable. This has two components: the high cost in reaching out to a multitude of SMEs and the low concern with cost recovery for support services. Third, they have at best a one-off effect on the performance of the assisted enterprise but rarely lead to a capacity for self-help and continuous upgrading.
The Triple C approach presented in this paper tries to overcome some of those deficiencies. However, it is not just about a type of intervention, but rather it concerns a particular configuration of SMEs, one in which they cluster or network. This is why, before plunging further into policy, we need to establish whether in developing countries there is fertile ground for the new approach, in other words, whether clustering is of relevance to the organization of manufacturing in developing countries.
1. CLUSTERING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The international attention given to clusters owes much to the European, especially Italian, experience. The question addressed in this section is how common clusters are in developing countries. Statistics are not available for this purpose, but a brief overview can be provided - based on a review by Nadvi and Schmitz (1994), updated for this paper. The main conclusion is that clustering seems common in a wide range of countries and sectors. Some clusters in Latin America and Asia have acquired great depth in terms of the concentration of specialized suppliers and support bodies. Among those for which studies are available are the metalworking and textile industries of Ludhiana in the Indian Punjab (Tewari 1990; 1992); the industry of Tiruppur in Tamil Nadu (Cawthorne 1990, 1995); the diamond industry of Surat in Gujrat (Kashyap 1992); the engineering and electronics cluster of Bangalore in Karnataka (Holmström 1993); the footwear clusters of Agra in Uttar Pradesh (Knorringa, 1993) the Sinos Valley in Brazil (Schmitz 1995a), Trujillo in Peru (Tavara, 1993; San Martin Baldwin et al. 1994), and Leon and Guadalajara in Mexico (Rabellotti 1993, 1995b); the Korean textile cluster in Daegu (Cho 1994); sports goods and surgical equipment in Sialkot, cutlery in Wazirabad and electrical fans in Gujrat in Pakistan (Nadvi 1992; 1995). In African clusters, the interfirm division of labour and institutional support tend to be less developed, as observed in the metalworking, furniture making, garment and other clusters in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Tanzania (Rasmussen 1991; Sverrisson 1993; McCormick 1994).
While primarily an urban phenomena, clustering can also be a feature of rural industrialisation, as in Indonesia where one can find the specialization of entire villages (Weijland 1994), for example, the manufacture of roof tiles (Sandee, 1994) or rattan furniture in Java (Smyth 1992). Within the urban arena, clusters located in intermediate towns seem to have been particularly successful, as indicated by their growth records and ability to compete in export markets. In contrast to clusters in small- and medium-sized towns, those in major cities tend to be less rooted historically and have sometimes emerged from informal self-employment coping strategies of the poor. Despite that, many such clusters display a growth potential that goes beyond informal survival strategies and indicates localized competitiveness based on increasing specialisation amongst small firms; examples are the metal and repair workshops in the Takora district of Lima, Peru (Villaran, 1993), and Suame, the industrial shanty suburb of Kumasi, Ghana (Dawson 1992). These are just some of the examples which can be identified in the recent literature and which suggest that clustering is of significance to the industrial organization of small-scale manufacturing in developing countries.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]  ... 下一页  >>